Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only adds 'Key discarded', which hints at non-retention, but it does not disclose the return value, success/failure behavior, validation criteria, or whether the operation is a pure read. This is insufficient for a check tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but under-specified. It lacks essential information about input mapping, output, and usage context. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It leaves the invocation ambiguous and does not support correct selection or parameterization in any real use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, all nine parameters are generic (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and none semantically maps to a Jira issue key. The description does not tell the agent which parameter to provide, so the agent cannot invoke this tool correctly despite the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Check a Jira issue key shape' is almost a direct restatement of the tool name 'jira-key-shape', making it tautological rather than clarifying. It does not specify which input parameter carries the Jira key, and the schema contains no 'key' property at all, so the core purpose is ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like github-repo-shape, wiki-title-ok, or validate-json. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints to help an agent select this tool over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.